51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

On receivability, UNAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the UNJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the UNJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the UNJSPF Regulations, UNAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

UNAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the UNJSPF. UNAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the UNJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. UNAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within UNDP before terminating her permanent appointment. UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. UNAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. UNAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the Administration had failed to provide a performance-related justification for its decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that the decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s appointment had to be upheld despite the fact that his e-PAS suffered from procedural irregularities as it did not consider that the flaws rendered the appraisal unlawful or unreasonable. UNAT considered that the decision not to renew the appointment was justified because the Secretary-General proved that the...

UNAT had before it an appeal against both UNDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and UNDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the UNDT and certain conduct by the UNDT and its Registrar. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the UNDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. UNAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the UNDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that although UNDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. UNAT held that UNDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. UNAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

UNAT held that UNDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. UNAT held that the only proper course for UNDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. UNAT held that UNDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. UNAT held that the reasoning of UNDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. UNAT held that it was unable to identify any...

UNAT considered an application to UNAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. UNAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a UNAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, UNAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. UNAT held that, absent a successful...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with UNRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. UNAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

UNAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. UNAT agreed with the findings of UNRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. UNAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by UNDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. UNAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...

UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law. UNAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. UNAT noted that the minutes upon which UNDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. UNAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. UNAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. UNAT...

UNAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. UNAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. UNAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.